All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core and nothing about cyclicality, so I assumed you referred to reversal cycles, which are at least defined even if not cyclical. If your new theory is that the movement of the magnetic poles causes near-extinction events at multiples of 6,480 years there's nothing in the evidence for that. The OP theory is literally about Aquarius and Leo and friends. Do you want me to look at the other geological arguments to see if they rely on the same three Antarctic ice cores as others do? Such as when Bill Nye said volcanic ash was obviously constantly produced for 15 years contrary to all observation?
>All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core
🚨 retarded lying disingenuous kike alert 🚨
External driver hypothesis
Plate tectonic-driven
A minority opinion, held by such figures as Richard A. Muller, is that geomagnetic excursions are not spontaneous processes but rather triggered by external events which directly disrupt the flow in the Earth's core. Such processes may include the arrival of continental slabs carried down into the mantle by the action of plate tectonics at subduction zones, the initiation of new mantle plumes from the core–mantle boundary, and possibly mantle-core shear forces and displacements resulting from very large impact events. Supporters of this theory hold that any of these events lead to a large scale disruption of the dynamo, effectively turning off the geomagnetic field for a period of time necessary for it to recover.[citation needed]
Substantial cosmic impact
Richard A. Muller and Donald E. Morris suggest some geomagnetic reversals may be caused by very large impact events and following rapid climate change. In this theory, the impact triggers a little ice age, and water redistribution toward the poles alters the rotation rate of crust and mantle. If the sea-level change is sufficiently large (>10 meters) and rapid (within a few hundred years), the velocity shear in the liquid core disrupts the convective cells that drive the Earth's dynamo.[6]
I didn’t say pole reversals, you disingenuous yappy retard
Do we have evidence for "cyclical shifts in the earth’s magnetic poles" other than the stochastically noncyclical reversals in magnetic ore?
Holy fucking retard alert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_drift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_excursion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_wander
All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core and nothing about cyclicality, so I assumed you referred to reversal cycles, which are at least defined even if not cyclical. If your new theory is that the movement of the magnetic poles causes near-extinction events at multiples of 6,480 years there's nothing in the evidence for that. The OP theory is literally about Aquarius and Leo and friends. Do you want me to look at the other geological arguments to see if they rely on the same three Antarctic ice cores as others do? Such as when Bill Nye said volcanic ash was obviously constantly produced for 15 years contrary to all observation?
>All three of those articles literally show Brownian motion mapped from the iron core
🚨 retarded lying disingenuous kike alert 🚨